RESPONSETOINTERVENTION
AN INTRODUCTION TO RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI)
TEACHERS AND PARENTS EXPECT CHILDREN TO LEARN WHEN THEY ATTEND
SCHOOL. BUT WHAT DOES A TEACHER DO WHEN A CHILD IN THEIR CLASSROOM IS
FALLING BEHIND IN LEARNING TO READ OR OTHER CORE SUBJECT AREAS? WHAT
D O E S A T E A C H E R D O W H E N HALF O F H I S O R H E R C L A S S I S H A V I N G A H A R D T I M E
KEEPING UP? TRADITIONALLY, THE CHILDREN WHO HAVE STRUGGLED THE MOST IN
THE CLASSROOM HAVE BEEN REFERRED FOR AN EVALUATION TO DETERMINE IF
THEY NEED SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES. THIS PRACTICE USUALLY PROVIDED
NEEDED SUPPORT FOR A PORTION OF THE STRUGGLING LEARNERS, BUT OFTEN LEFT
MANY OTHER STRUGGLING STUDENTS BEHIND.
RESPONSE TO
INTERVENTION
integrates assessment
and intervention
within a multi-level
prevention system
to maximize student
achievement and
to reduce behavior
problems.
IS THIS CHILD LEARNING?
Some new federal laws have directed schools to focus more on helping all children learn by addressing problems earlier, before the child is so far behind that a referral to special education services is
warranted. These laws include the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004. Both laws underscore the importance of providing high quality, scientifically based instruction and interventions, and hold schools accountable
for the progress of all students in terms of meeting grade level standards. (Klotz & Canter, 2007)
Some educators, parents, and administrators see Response to Intervention (RTI) as the transformative initiative that allows teachers to drive achievement for all students, and ideally, delivering the
desired results of these new laws, thus enabling teachers to answer an important question for every
child in their class—is this child learning?
RTI is an improvement framework designed for all students. The National Center on
Response to Intervention provides a good definition of this framework:
Response to Intervention integrates assessment and intervention within a multi-level
prevention system to maximize student achievement and to reduce behavior problems.
With RTI, schools identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student
progress, provide evidence-based interventions and adjust the intensity and nature of
those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness, and identify students
with learning disabilities.
This definition provides a good high-level view of what makes up the RTI framework.
DEVELOPING A
SYSTEM-WIDE
Implementing the RTI process in a school or district takes time—planning, commitment, and
RTI process provides
an opportunity to
the state or district
to systematically
evaluate instructional
and assessment
practices for all of
their children.
been practicing the RTI framework for many years, educational leaders who have published
resources by the school or district’s leadership. A lot can be learned from the districts that have
numerous research papers on key elements of the practice, and national organizations who work
diligently to help make RTI not just another new thing in their district but instead a framework that
will help all children learn.
A number of leading national organizations and coalition groups, including the National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities and the 14 organizations forming the 2004 Learning
Disabilities Roundtable coalition, have outlined the core features of an RTI process as follows.
■
High-quality, research-based instruction and behavioral support in general education.
■
Universal (school-wide or district-wide) screening of academics and behavior in order to
determine which students need closer monitoring or additional interventions.
■
Multiple tiers of increasingly intense scientific, research-based interventions that are
matched to student need.
■
Use of a collaborative approach by school staff for development, implementation, and
monitoring of the intervention process.
■
Continuous monitoring of student progress during the interventions, using objective information to determine if students are meeting goals.
■
Follow-up measures providing information that the intervention was implemented as
intended and with appropriate consistency.
(http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/2004LDRoundtableRecsTransmittal.pdf)
Developing a system-wide RTI process provides an opportunity to the state or district to systematically evaluate instructional and assessment practices for all of their children.
■
Are they using a simple, universal screening tool to quickly identify which students are progressing and which students are falling behind?
■
Are they using universal screening tools to measure the efficacy of instruction across Core and
Tiered instruction? Enriched instruction?
■
Are they able to easily and efficiently monitor every child’s progress?
■
Do the curriculum materials provide multiple ways to present information?
■
Do they respond to culturally diverse and English Language Learners?
■
Do classroom teachers know how to assess student performance and regularly monitor progress?
■
Are they supporting their teachers’ efforts in the classroom with professional development
offerings that are designed to improve student outcomes for all students, especially diverse
student populations?
(Ralabate, P., 2009)
2
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
If the district’s or state’s answers to any of these important questions are “no,” consideration
of a strategic RTI process for their schools is warranted.
While the practice of RTI is still evolving at the school, district, and state level, it’s important
to better understand current practices and concerns. The following sections of this paper will
provide a more complete overview of RTI—its history, laws, opportunities, and key issues to
consider as the practice of RTI grows across the United States.
RTI
Improved Learning for All Students
Although RTI has its roots in special education, it is an integrated general education approach
that includes special education, English Language learners (ELL), gifted and talented, and
Title I programs. It is first and foremost an initiative to be used with all students and in the
general education classroom. (Howell, Patton, & Deoitte, 2008)
In a recent survey of all 50 states, results indicated that at least 46 states have some form
of RTI in practice or in development at the school building, district, or state level. (Hoover,
Baca, Wexler-Love, & Saenz, 2008) While RTI practices have been utilized by schools since
the 1980s, its growing use in recent years has been driven in large part by both the tenets
of NCLB (requiring adequate yearly progress of all students) as well as the federal government’s support of using IDEA funding for strategies to identify learning problems early in a
student’s school life. Prior to NCLB, students with special needs and English Language
Learners (ELL) were treated often as exceptions to both traditional learning methodology as
well as assessment expectations. For example, special needs students were sometimes
taught “life skills” and were assessed on lower cognitive demands. Gifted and talented
students were sometimes identified as standing out from the general education population
via single normative measures. ELL students were “taught content” in their native language
while they learned English as if learning was culture- and context-free.
One of the most positive aspects of NCLB and the IDEA is that the focus of learning and high
attainment is now for all students. A key purpose of both of these laws is to produce better
outcomes for all children and to apply procedures with strong scientific bases to a wide range
of decisions, including determination of eligibility for special education in the category of
specific learning disabilities. (Batsche, Elliot, Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, Prasse, Rescley,
Schrag, & Tilly, 2008)
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
3
But with growing diversity, accountability pressures, and reduced classroom resources, even
the most devoted classroom teacher struggles on her or his own to evaluate each child’s
needs and apply the right resources in a timely manner to each student. According to Jack
O’Connell, California Superintendent of Public Instruction, “Too often, the struggles of the
African American student, the English learner, and the learning disabled student were hidden
by overall school achievement gains. RTI offers educators no- or low-cost strategies, especially needed in these dire economic times, to improve education for these and all students.”
(http://pubs.cde.ca.gov/tcsii/ch2/responsetointerven.aspx, California Dept of Education
web site, 9/20/09)
HOW DOES RTI CHANGE THINGS?
RTI changes how teachers decide what instruction should be delivered next to their
students. Teachers receive valuable information from the student data about each child in
his or her class—based on his or her student’s specific results, the teacher selects what
instruction will work best for each group of students. Rather than looking at labels, the
emphasis shifts to what can be done on a day-to-day basis to ensure children’s academic
growth. When it’s done well, it keeps track of all students. Kids who are falling behind can
get some help early on.
“Instead of asking ‘What’s wrong with this student?’ we ask ‘How can we support the learning of all students, no matter what barriers may exist for them?’ This is why I feel RTI is
transformative when implemented effectively.”
Dr. Patti Ralabate, NEA Senior Policy Analyst on Special and Gifted Education
RTI
An All-Encompassing Approach to Education
RTI strategies often rely on data to assess how each student is progressing so that students
who aren’t making progress are given access to small group instruction and additional
assessments targeted to assess their specific learning needs. If the child catches up, they
no longer need additional support. If the child continues to require additional support, they
may begin to receive more intensive instruction and comprehensive assessment.
4
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
A Brief History
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) was reauthorized by
Congress in 2004 and the new provision reflected a fundamental paradigm shift that potentially closes the gap between instruction and assessment. The 2004 language allowed a new
way for educators to identify struggling students. Before 2004, the law required educators to
use a discrepancy model.
The Discrepancy Model
Before the new law in 2004, federal law required evidence of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement in at least one important domain of academic functioning, usually reading. The states developed discrepancy formulas that included the use of I.Q. and academic achievement tests. Students demonstrating severe discrepancies between intelligence and
reading performance (the most common deficit) usually qualified for special education services.
Some believed that discrepancy formulas essentially dictated a “wait to fail” process because it
usually took time, often between 1–3 years, for students to demonstrate severe discrepancies.
These discrepancies were not only a result of a disability, but also the result of a lack of strategic intervention. (Howell, Patton, Deoitte, 2008) The new law allows the use of the discrepancy
model as well as a RTI framework, and a processing strengths and weaknesses model. States
can now utilize the method or methods that best serve their particular students.
IDEA 2004
The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was signed into law on Dec. 3,
2004, by President George W. Bush. The final regulations were published on Aug. 14, 2006.
The overview of IDEA 2004 Regulations below was prepared by the Office of Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the U.S. Department of Education to bring together the
regulatory requirements related to those topics to support constituents in preparing to implement the new regulations.
IDEA 2004 Regulations: New procedures for identifying children with specific learning disabilities.
A State must adopt, consistent with 34 CFR 300.309, criteria for determining whether a child has
a specific learning disability as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10).
In addition, the criteria adopted by the state:
(A) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement
for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR
300.8(c)(10);
(B) Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, researchbased intervention; and
(C) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining
whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10).
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
5
The rationale for
RTI originates in
advances in the
scientific bases
for intervention and
improved measurement technology
that is useful for
guiding instruction
and goal setting
and problem-solving
methods that
guide interventions
and important
educational
decisions, including
eligibility for
special programs.
The 2004 IDEA also allows states to take up to 15% of the money they receive from the
federal government for special education and use it for what is deemed “coordinated, comprehensive early-intervening services.” Early intervening services can be directed at students of all ages, though the particular focus has been on pupils from kindergarten to
grade 3. The rationale for RTI originates in advances in the scientific basis for intervention
and improved measurement technology that is useful for guiding instruction and goal
setting and problem-solving methods that guide interventions and important educational
decisions, including eligibility for special programs. (Batsche, 2008)
While RTI is not mandated at a federal level, the federal education law does require that
before any student is placed in special education, the school must ensure that his or her
learning problem is not linked to inadequate instruction. “The data crunching element of
RTI is a way to do that,” said George M. Batsche, a professor of school psychology at the
University of South Florida in Tampa and the co-director of its Institute for School Reform.
“The law says before we ever think about special ed, we have to look at general ed,” he
said. “Support services can’t fix the basic service.” The promise is that general education
teachers will be able to accurately identify the problems that students are having, and nip
those in the bud before they lead to entrenched difficulties, or referral to special education. (Samuels, 2008)
Defining Special Education
Although special education was once thought of as a “place,” IDEA 2004 clearly states
that special education is “a service for such children rather than a place where such
children are sent.” (20 U.S.C. 1400(c)(5)(C)). (Hale, 2008) The federal definition of special education provides further insight to the role of RTI in helping identify struggling
learners. Federal special education mandates since P.L. 94-142 have all defined special education as “Individualized instruction, at no cost to the parents or guardians, to
meet the unique needs of a child with a disability.” Assessing student needs and
designing instructional modifications to meet those needs is at the very core of special
education. Special education law has always included the provision that prior to consideration for special education it must be demonstrated that “the child was provided with
appropriate instruction in regular education settings” (300.309, Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 2004). Until the broader use of RTI in states, this provision was often overlooked in many classrooms.
6
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
THE ROLE OF RTI
in Specific Learning Disability Identification
Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) is often difficult to define and measure. Traditionally, SLD
has been defined through exclusions—accepting or eliminating factors for low-achievement
and then presuming remaining difficulties must be a SLD. For the past 30 years, the prominent idea has been unexpected underachievement, or the discrepancy between the child’s IQ
and achievement.
While there are differing views on the relationship between the RTI system and the best way
to identify a student’s specific learning disabilities, there is general agreement that RTI, per
se, does not diagnose specific learning disabilities. Many see RTI services and a comprehensive student evaluation as complementary steps in a process, with RTI serving as the first
step on a continuum of evaluative services that may extend to an individual student’s
comprehensive evaluation. Many supporters of the RTI service model believe that with RTI,
there is a conceptual shift from the notion of unexpected underachievement to the idea that
a specific learning disability is a persistent inability to master an academic skill. With RTI’s
base of high-quality instruction and ongoing assessment, it’s much easier to assist those
children who are not responding as hoped. Ideally, how well a child responds to instruction
is a part of the evaluation for special education services. (Deschler, Fletcher, & Wagner,
2008) Once a child is identified as low achieving, and the team has demonstrated that the
low performance is not due to limited English proficiency, problems at home or other factors,
there is a need to move beyond the skill-based measure.
At this point, it is important that the team look at the child in a broader sense—exploring the
child’s cultural influences, cognitive and information-processing capabilities, physical and
emotional health. The child’s teaching team may recommend additional evaluation steps,
including both cognitive measures and psychological processes evaluation. Such a comprehensive evaluation process provides important information about the student required to
make sound instructional decisions. It’s important to remember the primary purpose of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004), which is “to ensure that all children
with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education . . . designed to
meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living” (20 USC 1400(d)(1)(A)) and “economic self-sufficiency.” (20 USC 1400(c)(1))
Objective cognitive and neuropsychological testing offer additional ways to reveal these
unique individual characteristics and help design specialized instruction so all children can
succeed, including those with SLD. In addition, we know that not every child with a reading or math
SLD has the same type of problem, or responds to the same type of intervention. Researchers
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
7
have discovered different types of brain-based deficits that cause different types of SLD (called
RTI INVOLVES
SYSTEMATICALLY
evaluating the cause–
effect relationship
between an academic
intervention and a
student’s response to
that intervention.
subtypes) within particular academic areas (reading, math, writing).
Identifying the “deficit in the basic psychological processes” can help pinpoint the cause of
the child’s academic problem. This information can also help us develop appropriate interventions to help that child. (Hale, 2008; Kaplan, 1998)
There are several different research-based models which are consistent with the third
method of SLD identification under IDEA 2004. (Hale & Fiorello, 2004; Naglieri, 1999;
Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007, & Berninger, 2007) These models are based on an analysis of patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses and are designed to identify the deficit
in the basic psychological process responsible for the suspected learning disability. Each of
these models involves an:
■
Analysis of the relationship between deficient cognitive processes and difficulties with
academic skill acquisition and demonstration as well as the
■
Identification of cognitive processing strengths not associated with the area of disability.
AN OVERVIEW
of the RTI Service Delivery Model
Response to Intervention refers to an integrated, school-wide method of service delivery across the
general and special-needs population that promotes successful school outcomes for every student;
in essence, RTI is a two-fold system of reliable high-quality instruction and frequent assessment of
student progress. (Mellard, Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson, & Boesche, 2004) RTI involves systematically
evaluating the cause–effect relationship between an academic intervention and a student’s
response to that intervention. (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005) RTI practices are rooted in welldocumented special education practices and early reading intervention research. (Graner, FaggellaLuby, & Fritschmann, 2005)
ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF RTI
Successful implementation of RTI requires three essential components:
I. Multiple tiers of intervention
II. Data-based decision making
III. An integrated data collection/assessment system to inform decisions
at each tier of service delivery
8
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
I. Multiple tiers of intervention
RTI uses a multi-tier model of educational resource delivery. Each tier represents an increasing intensity of services matched to the level of current student need. Student intervention
outcomes drive decision making at every tier of the model.
In many systems, RTI has three levels of intensity, with instruction provided based on students’
individual needs. It is important to note that some systems implement an RTI process with
more than 3 levels. However, a commonality is that embedded in each tier is a set of unique
support structures or activities that help teachers implement research-based curriculum and
instructional practices designed to improve student achievement. Ongoing assessment of
students’ proficiency on critical academic skills is an essential part of the system.
Multi-tier models (e.g., Donovan & Cross, 2002; Sugai, Horner, & Gresham, 2002) provide
the resource deployment strategies for efficient school-wide or system-wide implementation
of RTI practices.
The RTI system is usually represented graphically by a pyramid showing three levels or tiers
EN
TI
TI
(R
Indentifying Specific
Stengths & Weaknesses &
Progress Monitoring
RV
TE
IN
TIER 2
TE
TO
IN
RV
TO
(R
SP
ON
ON
SE
SE
EN
ON
ON
SP
TI
TIER 3
Diagnostic
Testing &
Intensive
Progress Monitoring
RE
)
of service levels.
)
RE
TI
TIER 1
Universal Screening &
Benchmarking of All Students
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI)
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
9
An Overview of Each Tier:
Tier One: Universal Screening & Benchmarking of All Students
The school uses universal screenings in key academic areas to identify a student’s level of
proficiency (usually fall, winter, and spring). The resulting data needs to be organized in
formats that allow for review of both group and individual performance.
The resulting system-wide data answers two important questions:
■
Are we using the right curriculum and instructional processes in our schools?
■
What students need further intervention?
TEACHER: MRS. PIERCE STUDENT: TYLER ANGEL
Benchmark Scores for 2009-2010 School Year
Washington School District - Jefferson Elementary School / Tyler Angel (Grade 2)
Compared To: Jefferson Elementary School / Reading - Curriculum Based Measurement
140
WRC
126
112
Above
Average
98
Average
84
Below
Average
70
Target
56
Student
42
Copyright © 2010 by
NCS Pearson, Inc.
28
14
0
2Fall
R-CBM
2Winter
R-CBM
Grade, Benchmark Period, Outcome Measure
10
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
2Spring
R-CBM
Benchmark Comparison: Jefferson Elementary School
Outcome
Measure
Reading Curriculum
Based
Measurement
(R-CBM)
Year
Grade
Fall
Winter
Spring
Level
of Skill
Instructional
Recommendation
2009-2010
2
64.0
87.0
105.0
Average
Continue Current
Program (Jefferson
Elementary School
Spring Percentiles)
TIER TWO ALLOWS
TEACHERS TO
Tyler Angel improved from 64 Words Read Correct (WRC) from Grade 2 Passages at the Fall Benchmark to 105
Words Read Correct (WRC) at the Spring Benchmark. The rate of improvement (ROI) from the Fall Benchmark is 1.1
WRC per week. Currently, Tyler Angel’s score is Average compared to Jefferson Elementary School Spring
Percentiles. This was a score at the 67 percentile compared to other students in the Jefferson Elementary School
Spring Percentiles.
deliver small group
interventions and
regular monitoring
to students who are
not progressing as
expected through
Tier One progress
monitoring.
Sample Tier One Report: Is Tyler At Risk?
The above report tells the teacher how Tyler Angel (represented by a white dot) compares to
other 2nd graders in the school (yellow box) during the school year. His progress is measured
three times—Fall, Winter, and Spring—with a Benchmark Assessment. Tyler is not at risk
because he is performing above the benchmark target and performing well compared to
his classmates.
Tier Two: Identifying Specific Strengths and Weaknesses and Progress Monitoring
When students are identified as needing further intervention, they will progress to Tier Two
strategies. Starting in Tier Two, those students not progressing in basic skills must have
even more discrete and sensitive measures provided more frequently. (Howell, Patton,
Deoitte, 2008) Most educational researchers agree that curriculum-based measurement
(CBM) is helpful as individual, classroom, and district assessments. (Deno, Espin, & Fuchs,
2002) CBM is dynamic in that the measures are designed to be sensitive to the short-term
effects (i.e., 4–6 weeks) of instructional interventions; they are designed to assess change.
Because they are sensitive to improvement, they make excellent tools for progress monitoring, whether it is required by an IEP annual goal, a short-term goal as part of RTI, or as will
be shown, as part of progress monitoring of all general education students. Because the
tests are short (i.e., 1–4 minutes) in addition to being sensitive to improvement, they can
be administered frequently, even one to two times per week, to allow learning to be
assessed on a routine basis without a significant loss of instructional time or personnel
resources. (Shinn, 2002) Tier Two allows teachers to deliver small group interventions and
regular monitoring to students who are not progressing as expected through Tier One
progress monitoring. Consequently, students in Tier Two are receiving slightly more intensive intervention and progress monitoring than those in Tier One.
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
11
TEACHER: MRS. PIERCE STUDENT: CHLOE BERG
Benchmark Scores for 2009-2010 School Year
Washington School District - Jefferson Elementary School / Chloe Berg (Grade 2)
Compared To: Jefferson Elementary School / Reading - Curriculum Based Measurement
140
WRC
126
112
Above
Average
98
Average
84
Below
Average
70
Target
56
Student
42
Copyright © 2010 by
NCS Pearson, Inc.
28
14
0
2Sep
R-CBM
2Oct
R-CBM
2Nov
R-CBM
2Dec
R-CBM
2Jan
R-CBM
2Feb
R-CBM
2Mar
R-CBM
2Apr
R-CBM
2May
R-CBM
Grade, Benchmark Period, Outcome Measure
Benchmark Comparison: Jefferson Elementary School
Strategic Monitor Comparison: Jefferson Elementary School
Outcome
Measure
Reading Curriculum
Based
Measurement
(R-CBM)
Level
Year Grade Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May of Skill
20092010
2
34.0 39.0 46.0 59.0 65.0 71.0 82.0 87.0 99.0 Average
Instructional
Recommendation
Continue Current
Program (Jefferson
Elementary School
Spring Percentiles)
Chloe Berg improved from 34 Words Read Correct (WRC) from Grade 2 Passages at the Fall Benchmark to 99
Words Read Correct (WRC) at the Spring Benchmark. The rate of improvement (ROI) from the Fall Benchmark is 1.8
WRC per week. Currently, Chloe Berg’s score is Average compared to Jefferson Elementary School Spring
Percentiles. This was a score at the 56 percentile compared to other students in the Jefferson Elementary School
Spring Percentiles.
Sample Tier Two Report: Is Chloe Making Progress Over the School Year?
Chloe Berg’s teacher has decided that Chloe may be at risk so she is increasing the number of
assessments that Chloe will receive to one per month, often called Strategic Monitoring, to
regularly monitor if the new interventions are helping Chloe improve her performance. Chloe’s
final May assessment indicates that her performance has moved into the average range.
12
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
Tier Three: Diagnostic Testing and Intensive Progress Monitoring
In Tier Three, a smaller group of students that continues to struggle, despite the scientifically
based instruction provided in Tier Two, is served. Tier Three continues to utilize CBMs as a part
of an intensive monitoring and intervention process, working towards specific goals for at-risk
students. These services can include Title I, district remediation programs or special education
programs. Individual assessments may also be given, including achievement, cognitive abilities,
and processing skills assessments to determine individual plans for each student.
PROGRESSIVE MONITORING IMPROVEMENT REPORT FOR MICHAEL MARTIN
from 09/01/2009 to 05/14/2010
Michael Martin (Grade 5) / Grade 5: Reading - Standard Progress Monitor Passages
160
Intervention 2
Intervention 3
144
Words Read Correct (WRC)
128
112
Corrects
Errors
Corrects Aimline
Corrects Trend
96
80
Copyright © 2010 by
NCS Pearson, Inc.
64
48
32
16
9/7
9/14
9/21
9/28
10/5
10/12
10/19
10/26
11/2
11/9
11/16
11/23
11/30
12/7
12/14
12/21
12/28
1/4
1/11
1/18
1/15
2/1
2/8
2/15
2/22
3/1
3/8
3/15
3/22
3/29
4/5
4/12
4/19
4/26
5/3
5/10
0
Date
Goal Statement
In 36.4 weeks, Michael Martin will achieve 115 Words Read Correct with 5 Errors from grade 5 Reading - Standard
Progress Monitor Passages. The rate of improvement should be 1.86 Words Read Correct per week. The current
average rate of improvement is 3.73 Words Read Correct per week.
Date
Corrects
Errors
Goal/Trend ROI
Date
Corrects
Errors
Goal/Trend ROI
09/08 09/15
09/01
48
45
54
12
11
13
1.86/0.34
11/24
58
7
12/01 12/08
62
54
6
7
09/22 09/29 10/06 10/13 10/20 10/21 10/27 11/03
47
53
49
51
49
53
57
10
9
10
9
10
9
8
1.06
11/10 11/17
54
59
8
7
12/15 12/22 12/23 01/05 01/12 01/19 01/26 02/02
60
66
54
57
53
59
64
5
5
8
8
7
7
6
3.73
02/09 02/16
61
69
8
4
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
13
Sample Tier Three Report: Intensive Interventions and Assessments
for At-Risk Student Michael Martin
Michael Martin’s teacher has decided that the best plan for Michael will include frequent assessments towards goals using goal-level assessments. The resulting data will tell the teacher and
Michael if the interventions are having the desired impact on Michael’s learning. If the student
doesn’t progress as desired, the intervention can be changed. Michael’s teacher translates his
annual IEP goals into expected rates of progress (aim lines) allowing her to monitor his progress
(trend lines) toward his goals. These reports provide a document that can be used for periodic and
annual reviews of Michael’s progress.
II. Data-based decisions based on student response to intervention
Decisions in RTI practice are based on professional judgment informed directly by student performance data. This principle requires both that ongoing data collection systems are in place
and that resulting data are used to make informed instructional decisions. The resulting data
needs to be easily accessible, understandable, relevant, current, and accurate, presented in
formats and reports that can be understood by teachers, administrators, and parents.
III. An integrated data/assessment system to inform decisions
at each tier of service delivery
Assessing the student’s performance at each tier of the RTI program is central to improving
the student’s progress. There are systems available today to support RTI programs in the
classroom. The advantage of these systems is their extensive support to practitioners in
assessing progress, displaying data, and applying decision rules about improving instruction,
changing goals, or extending/discontinuing specialized services. (Batsche 2008) The National
Center for Response to Intervention has launched an annual evaluation of Screening and
Progress Monitoring Tools. Their evaluation can be found at www.rti4success.org.
KEY ELEMENTS
Needed to Create a Successful RTI Service Delivery System
Driving change in any organization is never easy. A successful RTI effort requires change in
curriculum, instruction, assessment, and specialty programs and involves everyone in a student’s learning process—principals, instructional aides, parents, students, administrators,
and the central office staff. The following five elements have been found to be critical in the
successful implementation of many RTI programs.
1. LEADERSHIP at the state, district, and building level is crucial to the fidelity of RTI
implementation. RTI is a significant change that affects the entire educational system.
Initially, district-level administrators must understand and embrace the essential components
14
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
and supports needed to effectively implement RTI. Superintendents, curriculum directors, principals, special education administrators, etc. must guide the implementation of RTI by developing
leadership roles and expectations for district and building administrators. Because of the broad
impact of RTI and its impact on the entire educational system, significant systemic changes will
need to occur to execute implementation with fidelity. These changes must be championed and
monitored by leaders at all levels. (http://www.cde. state.co.us/RtI/ Leadership.htm 10/8/09)
2. FIDELITY OF IMPLEMENTATION—both in the delivery of curriculum and in the RTI monitoring activities—is critical to the delivery of a successful RTI program. Fidelity here means
that every teacher has been trained to deliver the instruction and the RTI processes as they
were designed to be delivered. This level of consistency is only possible with extensive organizational training as well as the development of RTI program manuals and the development
of formal best practices. Without these key pieces, the validity of RTI is greatly reduced.
In an RTI model, fidelity is important at both the school level (implementation of the process)
and the teacher level (implementation of instruction and progress monitoring).
When school staffs administer a standardized assessment, the assumption is that the test
is administered according to the directions in the test's accompanying manual and that the
examiner is qualified. Implementation of RTI must meet the same standard.
Direct and frequent assessment of an intervention for fidelity is considered to be best practice. When researching the effectiveness of an intervention, it is critical to be able to report
the fidelity with which it was implemented so that any resulting gains in student achievement
can be accurately attributed to the intervention under scrutiny and so that the intervention may
be replicated. When implementing an intervention, it is critical to know whether it is being
implemented as planned, so that if the intervention is initially unsuccessful, schools can take
appropriate measures to remedy the deficiency rather than abandoning the entire reform.
(http://www.rti4success.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=733&Itemid=2, 10/08/09)
3. ENSURING PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT IN RTI SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEMS
The best implementations of a RTI service delivery system include parental communication
and involvement in their implementation manual. Ideally, each district will:
■
Include parents in all levels of decision making—advisory, district, and school-level planning
■
Provide guidance on parent participation and decisions for their children
■
Develop materials and resources for parents
(Jimerson, Burns, VanDerHeyden, 2007)
The best RTI schools take specific steps to create ongoing dialogues with parents and provide
parents with mechanisms that they can use to engage with schools on an ongoing basis.
(Deshler, Fletcher, & Wagner, 2008)
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
15
4. AN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN ENDORSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION
that supports curriculum-based measurement with user-friendly data management. This
system is aligned with district assessments used to measure benchmarks and high-stakes
student outcomes. Central administration also supports building-level skill development in
data analysis and outcome application. (Howell, Patton, & Deiotte, 2008)
5. ONGOING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS, PRINCIPALS, ADMINISTRATORS,
AND SCHOOL BOARDS. A considerable amount of professional development needs to be provided in the beginning stages of establishing RTI systems for capacity building. Continuing
training and technical assistance for all staff is critical to any type of systems change and
movement toward improvement because accountability for positive outcomes for all students
is a shared responsibility of all personnel.
To develop consistency across programs, it is beneficial if state departments of education, as
well as local educational agencies or districts, offer three or more opportunities for professional
development throughout the year. It is important that continuing training opportunities be
offered to parents, as well as educators, to help maximize the achievement of all students,
including students with disabilities.
(http://www.nrcld.org/rti_practices/collaboration.html#, 10/08/09)
KEY AREAS OF RESEARCH
There is a lot of research and analysis available on RTI—its history, its use, and practice today.
Much of the research so far has focused on elementary school implementation and the first
two tiers of service delivery. The topics below are ones that many believe are critical to the
further development and success of RTI nationally.
Gathering of district RTI implementation data, state by state, to develop
a better understanding of current practice on a national level.
Information about RTI implementation within individual states remains incomplete, which
must be addressed to best understand RTI on a national level. Information dissemination and
data collection are critical to ensure implementation fidelity to best understand a national RTI
perspective. (Hoover, 2008)
Use and effects of using culturally Responsive instruction
In the report, National Implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI):
Research Summary (Hoover, Baca, Wexler-Love, & Saenz, 2008), the authors discovered that
“among all states, culturally responsive instruction was reported as the least emphasized
16
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
objective in statewide RTI training efforts. This finding suggests that, although the school population is becoming increasingly more diverse, with a minority population estimated at one-third
of the total United States' population (U.S. Census, 2006), culturally responsive instruction is
not yet a priority in statewide RTI efforts. Many have argued that culturally responsive instruction is a necessary component in providing culturally and linguistically diverse students with
equal educational opportunities (Gay, 2002; Hoover, 2009; Villegas & Lucas, 2002;
Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995). Although less emphasized in state-wide trainings, several respondents requested assistance to incorporate culturally responsive RTI in their trainings.”
RTI in middle and high school
RTI SHOWS
PROMISE IN
helping every child
learn. Many educators
and parents believe
that RTI is the general
education strategy
that will actually
help close the
achievement gap.
While RTI is in practice in almost all 50 states, most of the implementations are still focused
on the elementary grades. Some districts are using this service model for middle and high school,
although there is very little research or best practices available to guide them. Focused
research is needed to develop the model further for middle school and high school utilization.
RTI & LD diagnosis: Role and policy implications of RTI in the identification
of a learning disability on a national as well as state level
What does Tier 3 look like? Some are concerned that a number of RTI implementations fundamentally alter and erode the concept of Learning Disability as a disability residing within the
child by the elimination of an evaluation of cognitive abilities and psychological processes,
reverting to a one size fit mentality where it is naively assumed that all children fail for the
same reason. (Reynolds, 2009).
WHAT’S NEXT?
As suggested above, it is important that further research continue on the RTI framework, but the
need for additional research, data gathering, and process development doesn’t mean that
schools or districts should stop using the RTI framework. In its many district and state implementations, RTI shows promise in helping every child learn. Many educators and parents believe that
RTI is the general education strategy that will actually help close the achievement gap.
“Response to Intervention (RTI) offers the best opportunity of the past three decades to ensure that
every child, no matter how gifted or challenged, will be equally valued in an education system
where the progress of every child is monitored and individualized interventions with appropriate
levels of intensity are provided to students as needed. Far too much attention has been focused on
the different approaches to RTI by education leaders, researchers, and implementers. It’s time to
look to what is common in our work and unite together so this opportunity is not wasted.”
Bill East, Executive Director
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
17
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
This Response to Intervention Glossary of Terms presents definitions for commonly used terms related
to response to intervention.
A
Accommodation
Accommodations are changes in instruction that enable children to demonstrate their abilities in
the classroom or assessment/testing setting. Accommodations are designed to provide equity, not advantage, for children with disabilities.
Accommodations might include assistive technology as well as alterations to presentation, response,
scheduling, or settings. When used appropriately, they reduce or even eliminate the effects of a child’s
disability, but do not reduce or lower the standards or expectations for content. Accommodations that are
appropriate for assessments do not invalidate assessment results.
Aim Line
The aim line is also referred to as the goal line. It is the line on a graph that connects the intersection
of the student’s initial performance level and date of that initial performance level to the intersection of
the student’s year-end goal and the date of that year-end goal. It represents the expected rate of student
progress over time.
AYP – Adequate Yearly Progress
AYP is a statewide accountability system mandated by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. It
requires each state to ensure that all schools and districts make Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by
states and as approved by the US Department of Education.
C
Coordinated Early Intervening Services
Coordinated early intervening services are the preventative components of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004. Early intervening
services are implemented to benefit students who manifest risk for poor learning outcomes but have not
been identified as needing special education or related services.
Core Curriculum
The core curriculum is the course of study deemed critical and usually made mandatory for all
students of a school or school system. Core curricula are often instituted at the elementary and secondary levels by local school boards,
18
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
Departments of Education, or other administrative agencies charged with overseeing education. As mandated by No Child Left Behind, core curricula must represent scientifically based practice.
Criterion-Referenced Assessment
Criterion-referenced assessment measures what a student understands, knows, or can accomplish in relation to a specific performance objective. It is typically used to identify a student's specific strengths and
weaknesses in relation to an age or grade-level standard. It does not compare students to other students.
Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA)
CBA is a broader term than Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM), as defined by Tucker (1987). CBM meets
the three CBA requirements: (1) measurement materials are aligned with the school’s curriculum; (2) measurement occurs frequently; and (3) assessment information is used to formulate instructional decisions.
Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)
CBM is an approach to measurement that is used to screen students or to monitor student progress in
mathematics, reading, writing, and spelling. With CBM, teachers and schools can assess
individual responsiveness to instruction. When a student proves unresponsive to the instructional program, CBM signals the teacher/school to revise that program. CBM is a distinctive form of CBA because
of two additional properties: (1) Each CBM test is an alternate form of equivalent difficulty; and (2) CBM
is standardized, with its reliability and validity well documented.
D
Data-Based/Data-Driven Decision Making
A process of collecting, analyzing, and summarizing information to answer a question and to guide
development, implementation, and evaluation of an action. Data-based decision making is continuous and
regular, and most importantly linked to educational/socially important decisions.
Data Point
A data point is one score on a graph or chart, which represents a student’s performance at one point in time.
Dif ferentiated Instruction
Differentiated instruction refers to educators tailoring the curriculum, teaching environments, and practices to create appropriately different learning experiences for students in order to meet each
student’s needs. To differentiate instruction is to recognize students’ varying interests, readiness levels,
and levels of responsiveness to the standard core curriculum and to plan responsively to address these
individual differences. There are four elements of the curriculum that can be differentiated: content,
process, products, and learning environment.
Dispropor tionality
Disproportionality is the over- or under-representation of racially, culturally, ethnically, or linguistically diverse
groups of students in special education, restrictive learning environments, or school disciplinary actions (e.g.,
suspensions and expulsions) in comparison to other students.
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
19
E
Early Intervening Services (EIS)
Early intervening services are the preventive components of No Child Left Behind and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act of 2004.
From NCLB: An LEA will provide training to enable teachers to teach and address the needs of students with
different learning styles, particularly students with disabilities, students with special learning needs (including students who are gifted and talented), and students with limited English proficiency; and to improve
student behavior in the classroom and identify early and appropriate interventions to help these students.
From IDEA: An LEA may use up to 15% of its IDEA Part B funds in any fiscal year, less any funds reduced
from its local fiscal effort, to develop and implement coordinated, early intervening services. Coordinated
early intervening services may include interagency financing structures (for students in K–12 with a particular emphasis on students in K–3) who have not been identified as needing special education or related
services but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education
environment. When it has been determined that there is significant disproportionality with respect to the
identification of children as children with disabilities, or the placement in particular educational settings of
such children, the SEA shall require the LEA to reserve the maximum 15% of IDEA Part B funds to
provide comprehensive coordinated early intervening services to serve children in the LEA, particularly children
in those groups that were significantly over-identified.
EIS activities could include:
■
Professional development for teachers and other school staff to deliver scientifically based academic
instruction and behavioral interventions, including scientifically based literacy instruction, and, where
appropriate, instruction on the use of adaptive and instructional software; and
■
Providing educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports, including scientifically based
literacy instruction.
ESEA/NCLB
Elementary and Secondary Education Act/No Child Left Behind
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) [original passage in 1965], renamed the “No Child
Left Behind” (NCLB) Act of 2001; federal statute relative to K–12 public education.
Evidence-Based Practice
Evidence-based practices are educational practices and instructional strategies that are supported by
scientific research studies.
F
Fidelity of Implementation
Fidelity refers to the accurate and consistent provision or delivery of instruction in the manner in which
it was designed or prescribed according to research findings and/or developers’ specifications.
20
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
Formative Assessment
Formative assessment is a form of evaluation used to plan instruction in a recursive way. With formative
assessment, student progress is systematically assessed to provide continuous feedback to both the
student and the teacher concerning learning successes and failures. With formative assessment, teachers diagnose skill, ability, and knowledge gaps, measure progress, and evaluate instruction. Formative
assessments are not necessarily used for grading purposes. Examples include (but are not limited to):
CBM, CBA, pre/post tests, portfolios, benchmark assessments, quizzes, teacher observations, and
teacher/student conferencing.
G
Goal Line (sometimes referred to as an aim line)
The goal line on a graph connects the intersection of the student’s initial performance level and date of
that initial performance level to the intersection of the student’s year-end goal and the date of that yearend goal. It represents the expected rate of student progress over time.
I
IDEA
IDEA stands for Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, also referred to as IDEA
2004. It was originally passed in 1975 with the latest reauthorization in 2004. It is a federal statute
related to providing a free, appropriate, public education and early intervening services to students with
disabilities ages birth through 21.
Inclusion
Inclusion is a service delivery model where students with identified disabilities are educated with general
education age/grade-level peers.
Intensive Intervention
Intensive academic and/or behavioral interventions are characterized by their increased focus for students
who fail to respond to less intensive forms of instruction. Intensity can be increased through many dimensions including length, frequency, and duration of implementation. Within RTI, intensive is sometimes
referred to as tertiary intervention.
L
Learning Disability
The IDEA 2004 definition of a Learning Disability/Specific Learning Disability is: The child does not achieve
adequately for the child’s age or to meet state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or stateapproved grade-level standards.
(i) Oral expression
(ii) Listening comprehension
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
21
(iii) Written expression
(iv) Basic reading skill
(v) Reading fluency skills
(vi) Reading comprehension
(vii) Mathematics calculation
(viii) Mathematics problem solving
Local Education Agency (LEA)
Refers to a specific school district or a group of school districts in a cooperative or regional configuration.
M
Modifications
Modifications are alterations that change, lower, or reduce learning expectations. Modifications can increase
the gap between the achievement of students with disabilities and expectations for proficiency at a particular
grade level.
N
Norm-Referenced Assessment
Norm-referenced assessment compares a student's performance to that of an appropriate peer group.
O
Over-Identification
Refers to the over-representation of students in special education programs/services that is above state and
national averages; identification of more students for services through special education than the proportion
of that population in the general population.
Over-Representation
Refers to the over-representation of students in specific disability-related categories that is above state
and national averages.
P
Primary Level of Intervention
Primary intervention is the universal core program that all students receive.
Problem-Solving Approach within RTI
Within RTI, a problem-solving approach is used to individually tailor an intervention. It typically has four stages:
■
22
problem identification, problem analysis, plan implementation, and plan evaluation.
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
Progress Monitoring
Progress monitoring is used to assess students’ academic performance, to quantify a student rate of
improvement or responsiveness to instruction, and to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction. Progress
monitoring can be implemented with individual students or an entire class.
R
Remediation
Instruction intended to remedy a situation; to teach a student something that he or she should have previously learned or be able to demonstrate; assumes appropriate strategies matched to student learning have been
used previously.
Response to Intervention (RTI)
Practice of providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student need, monitoring
progress frequently to make changes in instruction or goals, and applying child response data to important educational decisions.
S
Scaf folding
Scaffolding is an instructional technique in which the teacher breaks a complex task into smaller tasks,
models the desired learning strategy or task, provides support as students learn the task, and then
gradually shifts responsibility to the students. In this manner, a teacher enables students to accomplish
as much of a task as possible without assistance.
Scientific, Research-Based Instruction
Curriculum and educational interventions that have been proven to be effective for most students based
on scientific study.
Screening
Universal screening is conducted, usually as a first stage within a screening process, to identify or predict students who may be at risk for poor learning outcomes. Universal screening tests are typically brief;
conducted with all students at a grade level; and followed by additional testing or short-term progress
monitoring to corroborate students’ risk status.
Secondary Level of Intervention
Secondary intervention supplements primary intervention (i.e., the universal core program) such that students
receive additional research-based preventative treatment. Secondary level interventions are often short-term,
implemented in small group settings, and may be individualized.
Specific Learning Disability
The IDEA 2004 definition of a Learning Disability/Specific Learning Disability is: The child does not achieve
adequately for the child’s age or to meet state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the
following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or
state-approved grade-level standards.
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
23
(i) Oral expression
(ii) Listening comprehension
(iii) Written expression
(iv) Basic reading skill
(v) Reading fluency skills
(vi) Reading comprehension
(vii) Mathematics calculation
(viii) Mathematics problem solving
Standard Treatment Protocol (also called standard protocol intervention)
Standard protocol intervention relies on the same, empirically validated intervention for all students with
similar academic or behavioral needs. Standard protocol interventions facilitate quality control.
State Education Agency (SEA)
Refers to the department of education at the state level.
Students At Risk for Poor Learning Outcomes
At-risk students are students whose initial performance level or characteristics predict poor learning
outcomes unless intervention occurs to accelerate knowledge, skill, or ability development.
Summative Assessment
Summative assessment is a form of evaluation used to describe the effectiveness of an instruction
program or intervention, that is, whether the intervention had the desired effect. With summative assessment, student learning is typically assessed at the end of a course of study or annually (at the end of a grade).
Systematic Data Collection
Planning a time frame for and following through with appropriate assessments to set baselines and monitor student progress.
Systemic Reform
Change that occurs in all aspects and levels of the educational process and that impacts all stakeholders within the process—students, teachers, parents, administrators, and community members—with implications for
all components, including curriculum, assessment, professional development, instruction, and compensation.
T
Ter tiary Levels of Intervention
Interventions that relate directly to an area of need; are supplementary to and are different from primary
and secondary interventions; are usually implemented individually or in very small group settings; may be
individualized; are often connected to the narrowest tier of a tiered intervention model.
Tiered Instruction
Levels of instructional intensity within a tiered model.
24
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
Tiered Model
Common model of three or more tiers that delineate levels of instructional interventions based on student
skill need.
Trendline
Line on a graph that connects data points; compare against aim line to determine responsiveness to
intervention.
U
Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
Process of designing instruction that is accessible by all students; UDL includes multiple means of
representation, multiple means of expression, and multiple means of engagement; the focus in creation
of UDL curricula is on technology and materials.
Universal Screening
A process of reviewing student performance through formal and/or informal assessment measures to
determine progress in relation to student benchmarks; related directly to student learning standards.
V
Validated Intervention
Intervention supported by education research to be effective with identified needs of sets of students.
Validity
An indication that an assessment instrument consistently measures what it is designed to measure,
excluding extraneous features from such measurement.
This glossary is a modified compilation of RTI terms compiled from documents produced by The National
Center on Response to Intervention, the RTI Network, and Pearson Education.
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Batsche, G., Elliot, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J., Prasse, D., Reschly, D., Schrag, J., Tilly, W.D.
(2005). Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation. Alexandria, VA. NASDSE.
Batsche, G., Kavale, K., & Kovaleski, J. (2006). Competing Views: A Dialogue on Response
to Intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), pp. 6–19. Accessed from http://aei.sage
pub.com on June 17, 2009.
Berninger, V. W. (2007) PAL-II user’s guide. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Brown-Chidsey, R. & Steege, M., (2005). Response to Intervention: Principles and Strategies for Effective
Practice. NY, NY, Guilford Press.
Colorado Springs School District 11. (2006) Response to intervention website information. Accessed at
www.d11.org/rti on June 9, 2009.
Deno, S. L., Espin, C. A., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Evaluation strategies for preventing and remediating
basic skill deficits. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and
behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 213–242). Bethesda, MD: NASP.
Deschler, D., Fletcher, J., & Wagner, R. (2008). The Role of RTI in LD Identification. Accessed at:
http://www.rtinetwork.org/Professional-Development/Forums/The-Role-of-RTI-in-LD-Identification-NationalOnline-Forum-October-1-2008 on September 20, 2009.
Donovan, M. & Cross, C. (eds.), Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education, Committee on Minority
Representation in Special Education, Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002.
Elliot, J. & Fuchs, D. What Does RTI Mean for the Classroom? Education Week, Spotlight on Response
to Intervention. March 1, 2009.
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (2nd ed.).
New York: Wiley.
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs L. S., Responsiveness-To-Intervention: A Blueprint for Practitioners, Policymakers, and
Parents. Teaching Exceptional Children. Sept/Oct 2005.
Gay, G. (2002). Culturally responsive teaching in special education for ethnically diverse students: Setting
the state. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15(6), 613–629.
Graner, P. S., Faggella-Luby, M. N., & Fritschmann, N. S. (2005). An overview of responsiveness to intervention: What practitioners ought to know. Topics in Language Disorders, 25(2), 93–105.
Hale, J. B. & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner’s handbook. New York: Guilford.
Hale, J. B., Kaufman, A., Naglieri, J. A., & Kavale, K. A. (2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integrating response to
intervention and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 753–770.
Hoover, J. J., (2009). Differentiating learning differences from disabilities: Meeting diverse needs through
multi-tiered response to intervention. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
26
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
Hoover, J. J., Baca, L., Wexler-Love, E., & Saenz, L. (2008). National Implementation of Response
to Intervention: Research Summary. Accessed at: http://www.nasdse.org/Portals/0/National Implementationof
RTI-ResearchSummary.pdf on July 30, 2009.
Howell, R., Patton, S., Deiotte, M. (2008). Understanding Response to Intervention: A Practical Guide to
Systemic Implementation. Bloomington, Indiana. Solution Tree.
Ikeda, M. J., Rahn-Blakeslee, A., Niebling, B. C., Gustafson, J. K., Allison, R., and Stumme, J. (2007).
The Heartland Area Education Agency 11 Problem-Solving Approach: An Overview and Lessons Learned.
Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention. NY,
NY. Springer.
Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2007). Handbook of Response to Intervention: The
Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention. NY, NY. Springer.
Kaplan, E. (1998). A process approach to neuropsychological assessment. In T. Boll & K. Bryant (Eds.),
Clinical neuropsychology and brain function: Research, measurement, and practice (pp. 125-167).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Klotz, M. B. & Canter, A. (2007). Response to Intervention (RTI): A Primer for Parents. National Association
of School Psychologists, from www.nasponline.org. National Association of School Psychologists, 2007.
Lemagie, S., (2008). Measure for Measure, Teaching Approach Gaining Popularity. Star Tribune, 9/9/08,
Minneapolis, MN.
Mellard, D. F., Byrd, S. E., Johnson, E., Tollefson, J. M., & Boesche, L. (2004). Foundations and research on
identifying model responsiveness to intervention sites. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27 (4), 243–256.
Mission to Build the Capacity of State Educational Agencies (SEAs) Accessed on May 20, 2009 at: http://
secc.sedl.org/events/09/rti_feb/files/10_rti_center_rti_summit09_rose_woodruff_presentation_final.pdf.
Naglieri, J. A. (1999). Essentials of CAS assessment. New York: Wiley.
Ralabate, P., How Can RTI Be Transformational, Council for Exceptional Children RTI Blog,
http://cecblog.typepad.com/rti/2009/08/rti-a-transformative-general-education-initiative.html.
Response to Intervention Adoption Survey 2009. Accessed on June 12, 2009 at www.spectrumk12.
com/campaign/rti_survey_results.
Reynolds, C. & Shaywitz, S. (2009). Response to Intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watchthem-fail. School Psychology Quarterly. Vol 24(2), Jun 2009, 130–145.
Samuels, Christina A. (2008) Embracing Response to Intervention. Education Week, January 23, 2008.
Samuels, Christina A. (2008) Response to Intervention Sparks Interest, Questions. Education Week,
January 23, 2008.
Samuels, Christina A. (2006). Ed. Dept. Backs Research Plans for RTI Method. Education Week,
November 8, 2006.
School Examples, Student Case Studies, and Research Examples, National Research Center on Learning
Disabilities, http://www.nrcld.org, August 2006.
PEARSON ISSUE
4 PA P E R
27
Shinn, M. R. (2002). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problemsolving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 671–697).
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Gresham, F. (2002). Behaviorally effective school environments. In M. R.
Shinn, G. Stoner, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems: Preventive
and remedial approaches (pp. 315–350). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School
Psychologists.
The Parent’s Guide to Response to Intervention. July 2008. Accessed on May 23, 2009: at
http://www.ldail.org/documentCenter/RTI_Guide_for_Parents_07_2008_LDA_IL.pdf.
Villegas, A. M. & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. New
York: State University of New York Press.
Wlodkowski, R. J. & Ginsberg, M. B. (1995). A framework for culturally responsive teaching. Educational
Leadership, 53(1), 17–21.
Ysseldyke, J. E. & McLeod, S. (2007). Using Technology Tools to Monitor Response to Intervention.
Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention. NY,
NY. Springer.